Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LuckyWikipedian/Archive

30 August 2012

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.

LuckyWikipedian edited from 15 to 17 August, making under 30 edits to Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) and Family Research Council. His editing attracted several warnings and a 24-hour block for edit-warring.

Philipegalite began editing August 29 and all his edits have been to SPLC and other users' talkpages.

LuckyWikipedian's first edit to SPLC was adding a section about a gunman who attacked the Family Research Council. Philipegalite's first edit was to SPLC and included information about the same attack.

Both accounts show a level of understanding of WP procedures unusual for new editors. TFD (talk) 02:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP address was used before the account for Philipegalite. TFD (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

I am told to post here. This is like a kafkaesque situation in cyberspace: I'm invited to participate to edit an article in which the "neutrality is disputed" (even if by a generic invitation); I'm attacked for doing so, even though I'm in fact trying to balance the article in the direction needed with a single referenced paragraph; I'm not treated fairly as a newcomer, as is required by Wiki guidelines; I'm now accused of being someone I am not! Yes The Trial comes to mind!

In a better light, I want to thank StillStanding-247 and The Four Deuces for making me aware of this intemperate, distracting, false witness accusation of a "suspected sockpuppet" and for providing information and advice!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuckyWikipedian

Let me just say, the FRC shooting was extensively covered by multiple media outlets and the work of the SPLC has been known for years, so the fact two posters commented on this in such time sequence was nothing but coincidence. I was triggered to post by one of the articles I have read which I cited as a reference. I don't know of and have nothing to do with LuckyWikipedian or his account.

It is difficult "to remain calm," as suggested, but looking at the "recommended reading" Wiki posts of StillStanding-247, I find that the posters (or editors?) that attacked me (and, it seems, have been disputing the SPLC for a long time) have committed the real and multiple violations (see below for at least one).

So far, I have only made one, a single post on the SPLC (that I edited once but was still removed), as I have already explained (see previous posts on the SPLC Talk and my own Talk page). I was attacked by a pack of partisan wolves in direct violation of Wikipedia policy (as I'm quickly finding out!), and I gave up soon after, disappointed, as I have described –and is documented throughout. I was not given a warm welcome and the courtesy due a newcomer to Wikipedia:

"New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards. "Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers (my emphasis), and remember everyone was new at some time." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SPA

My thanks to Sir Lionel for the only unreserved warm welcome, and again to I'm StillStanding and The Four Deuces for making me aware of all of this and their advice. And I (think) rest my case!Philipegalite (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was involved with both LuckyWikipedian and Philipegalite, including the former's block. The behavior of Philipegalite does not seem consistent with that of LuckyWikipedian, so this looks like a fishing expedition to me. It's also fishing in the wrong hole: Lucky's account is inactive and, I suspect, will remain so. In other words, even if Philip is Lucky under a new name, I'd say that there's no attempt to avoid sanction for the Lucky's short 3RR block or to repeat the same bad behavior. I'd also like to note that I disagree with Philip's politics and think his suggested change was a bad idea, so this isn't partisan.
 * I would politely suggest that we instead focus on harmful editors. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Request resolution of this fabricated case 

As this issue is on "hold pending further information and development," I thought I should add these remarks by two other Wikipedia editors, while I wait on the final resolution of this Kafkaesque situation. We have already heard from I'm stillStanding. Unlike the other fellow, I am not going away:

"Progress at SPLC– Thanks for your efforts to finally bring balance to the article. We're close to finally achieving consensus on the nature of the criticism to be added. I hope I can count on your continued participation. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)"

Here is another post by a knowledgeable person in this case:

"Similar Experiences– Hi Philipegalite, welcome to Wikipedia and please stay. Your are at a prestigious institution where only the best of the best volunteer editors come to mark their knowledge/territory. Like all of the premiere places everywhere in the world, it is supposed to be apolitical but that simply is not the case as your quickly found out. First off be very careful of all the policies around here lest you be accused of being someone else. Side Note: I hope you stay after being accused of being a Sock Puppet since it appears LuckyWikipedian has left and we'd hate to lose two new editors over one accusation. "The hounding of new editors is a debate at the highest levels but nothing is being done and the hounding seems to be going on a lot around here. Some people think they, and the things they write, are more equal than others. Unfortunately they think logic is equivalent to saying the same thing over and over even when new evidence or new angles of defense are presented. This behavior and pseudo-bullying will happen wherever you go in life. So why not stay here? "You have met Sir Lionel and BelchFire, two people who will treat you the same whether you agree with them or not. And you have met 1 or 2 who will appear to be friendly and offer advice so long as you agree with them. But while seeming to get along they are building evidence against you, enough to make you feel paranoid. My response, and you are free to follow your own way, was to let these kids have their little niches and contribute in other places. Remember that once you write something, you no longer own it. So again, welcome and try to have fun, what's the worse they can do - pay you? I make my contributions by sticking to my expertise which is grammar (except my own). One day I might rewrite a small piece of the SPLC based solely on a grammatical error just to see if they'll hound me. Then again I have a tendency to just disappear for long periods and come back when I want. "I hope you can find your way and your niche and perhaps someday one of us will get a criticism to stick against the SPLC. Yendor (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)"

Thus, I Request resolution of this fabricated case and my pseudonym cleared of any association with any previous Wikipedia poster, editor, writer, clerk, etc. Thanks Philipegalite (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * . WilliamH (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Following some e-mail discussion, I'm satisfied that this case can be closed and have marked it accordingly. WilliamH (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2012 (UTC)